DC Comics waited too long to file its copyright interference suit in the battle over who owns Superman, says the lawyer of the estates of Man of Steel co-creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. In another round in the multi-front fight between Warner Bros and the estates, attorney Marc Toberoff on Monday cited statute of limitation laws and asked the federal court to dismiss (read it here) the suit DC’s corporate owners filed against him almost three years ago. This move comes less than a month after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals essentially handed WB full rights to Superman in a related copyright case — a big deal for the studio, whose rebootMan Of Steel flies into theaters June 14. In its May 14, 2010 suit, DC Comics claimed Toberoff meddled with the 1992 copyright agreement the company had reached with the two estates. It also alleges Toberoff drafted overriding agreements with the estates in 2001 and 2003 to recapture DC’s Superman copyright interests and to position himself and his companies to secure a controlling financial interest in the families’ claims.

This week’s motion says that regardless of DC’s claims, they ran down the clock on themselves. “The record shows that DC was on notice of this supposedly tortious conduct by no later than 2006. And yet DC did not file suit that year. Nor did it file in 2007, 2008, or even 2009. Instead, DC sat on its alleged rights, and did not file suit until May 2010 — nearly a decade after the supposed torts had occurred and nearly half a decade after it was put on notice. These state-law claims were filed much too late, and are conclusively barred by the statute of limitations,” says the motion for partial summary judgment. The motion also adds that the Warner Bros-owned comic company’s request for a declaration that the agreements with the lawyer are unenforceable is barred by a four-year statute of limitations, they added. Toberoff and the other defendants (Mark Warren Peary, the personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Shuster, and Jean Adele Peavy, Laura Siegel Larson, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Joanne Siegel, Pacific Pictures Corporation, IP Worldwide and IPW) have requested a March 11, 2013 hearing on their request.

At the same time, motions that WB filed last fall in the case have now been reactivated as the appeal process has wound down. WB’s seeking sanctions against Toberoff and his companies claiming the attorney suppressed evidence in the discovery process in the case. The studio’s lawyer Daniel Petrocelli is aiming to put Toberoff on the stand to answer the claims. That motion will also be discussed in the March 11 hearing. In a separate motion, also scheduled to be heard on March 11, WB is seeking attorney’s fees of $500,000 from Toberoff in the case the appeals court decided largely for the studio.

Less than a month after scoring a major legal victory in theSupermancopyright case, Warner Bros today sought to finish off the suit by the heirs of co-creator Jerry Siegel. “After nearly a decade of litigation, the Siegel Superman and Siegel Superboy cases can now come to an end,” said the motion for summary judgment (read it here) filed Thursday. The studio wants the federal court to assert the January 10 ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that essentially gave Warner Bros full rights to the superhero character and the freedom to move forward with its Superman big screen reboot Man of Steeland other related properties without the threat of further legal action by the creators’ heirs and estates. The ruling last month overturned a 2008 ruling that Laura Siegel Larson and the estate of Joanne Siegel still controlled the lucrative rights to Superman and his younger self Superboy because a binding agreement was never reached by the parties. “In short, these cases are over. Any attempt by Larson to resuscitate them is futile,” the studio and its DC Comics subsidiary said in today’s filing by lawyers Daniel Petrocelli, Matthew Kline and Cassandra Seto. “In both the Superman and Superboy cases, DC’s Fourth Counterclaim seeks a declaration that Larson transferred her Superman and Superboy copyrights to DC pursuant to a 2001 settlement agreement, and that the parties are bound by the terms of that agreement,” it added. “The Ninth Circuit requested that this Court resolve these questions on remand, and the Court can and should do so now, and bring these two long-running cases to an end.” Defendants WB and DC Comics have requested a hearing on the motion for March 11, the same day several other matters in the Man of Steel legal saga are to be addressed by the court.

Man, That Toberoff is looking to exploit every technical loophole to turn the case in his favor.

I find it unbelievable that in-spite of knowing his intentions (To gain some percentage of ownership rights to Superman property, in order to make a Superman movie using his own production house "Pacific Pictures") there is still a chance that the courts may somehow grant him a part of rights, just on technical grounds.

Edit: we will know what happens next on March 11 th. I really hope that this case is closed and is never opened again. (of course I want WB to give adequate royalties to Siegel and Shuster heirs, but I don't want Toberoff to gain anything.)

__________________
"Well, aside from the need for corrective lenses and a tendency to be abducted by extraterrestrials involved in an international governmental conspiracy, the Mulder family passes genetic muster."
-Fox Mulder

I mean if Toberoff ad got his way and produced a Superman film under his production company.

I think it's rather pointless to think about those types of things.

__________________
"Well, aside from the need for corrective lenses and a tendency to be abducted by extraterrestrials involved in an international governmental conspiracy, the Mulder family passes genetic muster."
-Fox Mulder

Just something I wonders that's all, I was basically making the point had he gotten to make a Superman film I doubt it would have had a big budget

obviously it wouldn't

__________________
"Well, aside from the need for corrective lenses and a tendency to be abducted by extraterrestrials involved in an international governmental conspiracy, the Mulder family passes genetic muster."
-Fox Mulder

I rather think Toberoff planned to use his ownership(s) as bargaining chips; he has no interest in making movies.

Don't like this guy....period

__________________
"Well, aside from the need for corrective lenses and a tendency to be abducted by extraterrestrials involved in an international governmental conspiracy, the Mulder family passes genetic muster."
-Fox Mulder

Man, That Toberoff is looking to exploit every technical loophole to turn the case in his favor.

I find it unbelievable that in-spite of knowing his intentions (To gain some percentage of ownership rights to Superman property, in order to make a Superman movie using his own production house "Pacific Pictures") there is still a chance that the courts may somehow grant him a part of rights, just on technical grounds.

Edit: we will know what happens next on March 11 th. I really hope that this case is closed and is never opened again. (of course I want WB to give adequate royalties to Siegel and Shuster heirs, but I don't want Toberoff to gain anything.)

I could be reading this wrong, legal jargon is not my strong point, but I don't think he's trying to get rights or anything (anymore). WB was suing him for making a deal with S&S to get some of the rights for himself, now he's trying to get that case dismissed. I think.

WB had filed a lawsuit against Toberoff as he had too had a financial stake in S&S case, which was more than usual relationship between Lawyer and client.

But, now Toberoff claims that WB were slow to respond. WB filed a lawsuit against Toberoff in the court in May 2010, so as per certain clause (the statute of limitations), since there was considerable delay, the WB's objections and lawsuit against Toberoff should be rejected.

Warner Bros. believes that the legal war can be ended before the release of "Man of Steel," but the attorney for the Jerry Siegel estate has new arguments in the long-running case.

Timothy A. Clay/AFP/Getty Images

Giving up on superhero dreams doesn't come easily.

Superman was created in the late 1930s by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. For three-quarters of a century since, the two have been in and out of court to gain greater financial participation. The duo and their heirs have made deals with studios along the way, and most recently, the Siegel and Shuster estates were hoping to exploit a provision of the Copyright Act that allows a copyright grant to be terminated.

In January, they were dealt a blow when Warner Bros. scored a huge win in a lawsuit that's lasted nearly a decade. Unfortunately for the Siegels and their attorney Marc Toberoff, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled that in 2001, the Siegel family came to an agreement with Warners' subsidiary D.C. Comics to settle the termination fight.

Over? Not quite yet.

Now the case is back at a lower federal court in California.

Warners smells blood and believes that a conclusion is just around the corner -- which would represent great timing because its big-budget Superman reboot Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan, will be released this summer.

"After over eight years of litigation, the Siegel Superman and Superboy Cases can and should now come to an end," the studio argued in legal papers filed last week.

Warners has a summary judgment motion pending that seeks a declaration that the 2001 agreement is enforceable, and that DC owns all the copyrights. Additionally, the studio is pursuing its legal attack on Toberoff for interfering with its rights and for alleged misconduct in the discovery process. It believes that the fight can be "fully and finally resolved in the next 60 to 90 days."

But the Siegels and Toberoff are attempting a new strategy premised on the notion that the Ninth Circuit ruling was limited. "There are a host of outstanding issues that preclude DC from the relief it seeks," the Siegels' say in legal papers.

If a contract was created, the heirs of the Superman co-creator want to argue, the Warners subsidiary didn't perform under the contract.

"DC failed to perform or to even tender performance by March 31, 2002, the date agreed upon," writes Toberoff. He continues, "DC anticipatorily breached by instead demanding unacceptable new and revised terms as a condition to its performance; accordingly, the Siegels rescinded the agreement, and DC abandoned the agreement."

Finally, Toberoff is looking to reintroduce his long-held belief (fought in various lawsuits over the years) that the Copyright Act prevents the anticipatory transfer of terminated rights through contracts. He's prevailed once before on that argument in a case involving rights to Lassie. There have been other decisions that have gone the other way -- including, most recently, against the estate of Superman's other co-creator Joe Shuster.

Toberoff's greatest challenge, though, might be judicial fatigue after eight years of a case that's been up and down and up and down the court system. He could soon find himself in a similar position as the various lawyers for Stan Lee Media Inc. who have been frustrated with judges refusing to pay much respect to countless arguments for why Spider-Man and other superhero characters were wrongfully ripped away.

i don't even know who to side with in this. I just want Superman to be left alone.

__________________If you are offended, remain offended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltimateJustin

no kid in fifteen years will recall what was going on in the haze of animated card game shows where cat faced japanese children yelled annoyingly and danced around and shot mushrooms out of their mouths.

I know of the legal battle between WB and the Siegel estate but never really followed it, however this caught my eye in the article:

Quote:

Warners is safe as it prepares to release its big-budget Superman reboot Man of Steel, directed by Zack Snyder and produced by Christopher Nolan, but there may be more fussing on works like the TV series Smallville, before the case is firmly wrapped up.

Could that be why Warner has been so cagey about promoting MOS this year so far aside from a magazine cover or 2 because of the outcome of this rights issue?

They've already made the movie to the tune of $225mil. It would be shooting themselves in the foot to be scared of marketing it.

Yeah. Even in the midst of the recent legal battles, WB made Smallville and SR and continued to publish (thru DC) the comics. In other words, WB/DC was still producing Superman content. So it’s a tad misleading when journalists imply that the fate of MOS (perhaps its very release) was dependent on the outcome of a judge’s ruling - especially since a court essentially ordered WB to make MOS (or suffer $ penalties).